Response to interpellation 2025/26:70 on the state's responsibility for Bromma Airport

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! Kadir Kasirga has asked Minister for Infrastructure and Housing Andreas Carlson two questions. The first is whether the Minister and the Government intend to act to prevent other state airports from financing Bromma Airport's deficit and when the Minister considers that Bromma should be able to bear its own costs. The second question is whether the Minister intends to, within his area of responsibility, work towards a review of Swedavia's land lease agreement with the City of Stockholm to ensure an efficient use of state funds.

The work within the government is distributed in such a way that it is I who shall answer the interpellation.

Companies with state ownership are subject to the same laws as privately owned companies, including the Companies Act (2005:551). In the Companies Act, there is a division of responsibility between owners, the board, and the management. It is the company's board and management that are responsible for the company's organization and the management of its affairs, as well as the ongoing management of the company's operational activities.

Swedavia AB is a state-owned company that operates and develops the ten airports in the national base supply. To change which airports are included in the national base supply, the approval of the Riksdag is required.

Questions concerning the individual airports' operations, economy, and traffic development are operational matters for Swedavia's board and management to handle. This also applies to questions regarding land rents and other agreements that Swedavia has entered into to conduct the company's operations.

The Government monitors Swedavia's economic development and goal achievement through, among other things, ownership dialogues. It is the responsibility of the board and the management to ensure Swedavia's long-term competitiveness and that the company is managed in an exemplary manner within the framework of legislation and the state's ownership policy.

The decreasing domestic air travel has affected Swedavia's economic conditions. Furthermore, the total defense's requirements for airports have changed due to the deteriorated global situation and the NATO accession. As a result of Bromma Airport losing a majority of its traffic, a number of issues have become relevant that are linked to the airport's function.

The Government therefore, in May 2025, commissioned a special investigator to investigate and evaluate both the state's role as owner and manager of airports and the current national base supply of airports (dir. 2025:55, The state's future role as owner and manager of airports and Bromma Airport's function). The assignment shall be reported by September 30, 2026, at the latest.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Finance for the answer, even though it raises more questions than it provides answers. What I hear is an answer where one hides behind the Companies Act and the bureaucracy instead of taking political responsibility for how the state's money is used.

The Minister for Finance refers to Swedavia's board, to owner dialogues, and to an investigation that is not due to be completed until 2026, but what we are talking about here is an ongoing waste. Hundreds of millions of kronor are spent every year on an airport that has long since lost its socio-economic significance. It requires political responsibility, not yet another investigation.

Madam Speaker! Traffic at Bromma Airport has decreased by over 90 percent. Despite this, the government, together with SD, continues to operate the airport through Swedavia at great costs and without a future plan. According to information in the newspaper Mitt i Stockholm, Swedavia loses nearly 100 million kronor per year at Bromma Airport. The losses are practically covered by revenues from other state-owned airports – that is, by the taxpayers' money.

Does the Minister for Finance really think it is reasonable that every flight from Bromma Airport is practically subsidized by the state, so that a small group of people can fly a little closer to the city? This is not about being against aviation. It is about responsibility for the state's resources and fairness between people and regions.

Madam Speaker! When the government speaks of prioritizing hard, it should also have the courage to phase out what is no longer justified. Bromma Airport also occupies 130 hectares of land – attractive land in the middle of Stockholm – for 5,000 kronor a month. It is not only economically unreasonable, but it is socially irresponsible. Every Stockholmer sees that the land could be used better: for housing, schools, parks, and workplaces.

Madam Speaker! The Government is happy to talk about order and tidiness in the economy, but keeping a loss-making airport alive, which no longer serves any function and takes resources from Arlanda and other socially important airports, is the opposite of order and tidiness.

We Social Democrats want to see a Sweden that invests in the transport of the future, not in the structures of yesterday. We want to see a responsibility based on facts, climate benefits, and justice.

My question to the Minister for Finance remains. When will the government and the Minister for Finance take responsibility and put a stop to Bromma Airport continuing to drain Swedavia of hundreds of millions of kronor every year?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Finance, for the answer to Kadir Kasirgas's very urgent interpellation!

I participate here as another Member of Parliament from the city of Stockholm, Madam Speaker, to emphasize an issue of great importance, not least for us Social Democrats in Stockholm and for all Stockholmers but also for all of Sweden's citizens and taxpayers.

Madam Speaker! Bromma Airport is today an airport for practically private aviation. We have been able to read about dogs traveling unaccompanied or with some company in private jets. It is that type of air travel that it is primarily about today.

Despite this being the situation and despite previous investigations having argued that Bromma Airport has served its purpose, this government remains firm in keeping the airport alive, at a significant cost. As Kadir Kasirga has explained and reminded, the rent today amounts to in the magnitude of 5,000 kronor per month. It is therefore cheaper to rent an airport in Stockholm than a one-room apartment with a kitchenette.

Madam Speaker! Bromma Airport is being investigated as a major urban development project in the City of Stockholm. It is one of the few opportunities to build further on our capital in connection with the existing capital, with housing, workplaces, parks, sports, preschools and schools – a living community, a community for everyone. But that work cannot gain full momentum as long as there is no clear decision that there will not be an airport there in the future, but something else.

Madam Speaker! This is about the housing issue. It is important. It is important for everyone who seeks a dynamic labor market in Sweden and a capital region that is dynamic and growth-promoting. Not least the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce has pointed out how negatively the housing shortage and the lack of housing supply affect growth in Sweden, not least here in the Stockholm region. It is therefore why I participate in this interpellation debate and emphasize this.

When it comes to Bromma Airport, it is a matter of thousands of homes being obstructed outside the airport area because the airport is located there. Regarding the airport area itself, it is about even more potential homes, workplaces, and so on. This we know.

Housing construction has fallen dramatically during this mandate period, and it is a major socio-economic problem. I believe the Finance Minister agrees with that. The government began by removing the investment support that existed for the construction of rental apartments with lower rent levels, and it looks like they are on track to conclude this mandate period by postponing possible housing development in Stockholm, in this case, by sticking to a provision in the Tidö Agreement.

My question to the Minister for Finance is whether the answer to Kadir Kasirga's question is not actually that it states in the Tidö Agreement that no decision regarding the closure of Bromma Airport shall be made during this mandate period. Is this not the rather simple answer to the question?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! I am participating in this debate as a member from Sörmland and a resident of Nyköping. Even though this debate is about Bromma, I would like to draw the attention of the Minister for Finance and the government to a fantastic airport located in Nyköping Municipality, not far from Stockholm: Skavsta Airport.

It is an airport in which a great deal of investment has been made over time, both public and private. It is an airport that is important for preparedness and that the Air Force uses. Both the Coast Guard and aerial firefighting are located there, and it has many other societal functions that have already been invested in and which are of great importance.

In addition to the capacity that Skavsta has for commercial aviation, investments are being made, also from the state side, in new infrastructure and the expansion of the railway because Ostlänken is to go to Skavsta. There shall be a station so that one can travel by train between Stockholm and Skavsta airport. It is a work that has begun. It has been prepared for many decades to get there, and when we finally are there, if not in too long a time, I hope that there is not an airport in Bromma that sits there and blocks the capacity that exists in other places. I think that when Ostlänken is expanded and the trains start running between Stockholm and Skavsta, Skavsta shall have increased capacity and be prepared to relieve Arlanda so that we do not have Bromma remaining – an airport that does not have the future plans, which is under decommissioning and which shall no longer fulfill this function.

I actually do not understand why the government is keeping Bromma. They spend an incredible amount of money – tax money – every year to keep Bromma barely afloat instead of expanding and preparing the airport in Skavsta, which they want to use anyway. Why are they holding on to Bromma? I do not understand why they spend these enormous sums of money on it when they could use them to develop and increase the capacity of an airport that is available and that definitely would need to be highlighted in the national strategy – and do it in a sustainable and neat way so that it can grow and so that the tax money can be used for something else, not least to develop other airports and develop Stockholm by using the land for housing, as my colleagues have said earlier in the debate.

My question to the Minister of Finance is: Why hinder the development of an airport such as Skavsta in favor of spending masses of money on Bromma Airport?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I must remind [you] of what was the basis for the interpellation. But I understand that since it was addressed to one minister and is being answered by another minister, the topic of debate becomes somewhat broad here.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! Let us begin by stating the obvious: Sweden is a sparsely populated, elongated country with long distances. We live in a country that is located at the edge of Europe, Madam Speaker. We have a great need for fast transport so that people can travel to and from the capital from different parts of the country, but also from the capital and further out into the world. It is a prerequisite for us to have successful companies in Sweden – in all of Sweden. Therefore, issues regarding aviation infrastructure are incredibly important. We are a successful and fantastic country, and aviation constitutes an important part of the foundation for that.

I think, Madam Speaker, that it is responsible not to rush something that cannot be repaired. If we were to do as the Social Democrats want, close Bromma Airport and build housing where it is located, we will never be able to recreate that infrastructure. They want to rush such a decision without taking into account what the needs look like here and now, in the near future, and in the longer term. That, Madam Speaker, I think is very irresponsible.

Airports in Stockholm are not just a Stockholm issue, even if it might sound that way from some of the members here. Stockholm is important. It is very important that Stockholm can continue to develop. But the capital is the capital of the whole of Sweden. Here we have much of what we need to reach from other parts of the country. This applies to everything from business to private travel, universities and colleges, and public activities.

At Bromma Airport, there is an incredible amount of important activity, everything from ambulance flights and police flights to organ transports, which provide redundancy for the capital's and the total defense's needs.

The Social Democrats have a tradition of always having rock-solid convictions until they change them. That was the case with the NATO entry, and we can take it question by question.

Yesterday, there were drone alarms at Landvetter and in Brussels. In recent weeks, Madam Speaker, there have been drone alarms across Europe. Reality has changed. It is therefore responsible to investigate how we should take this into account and how we should have redundancy in the capital. If Arlanda shuts down, how shall we ensure that there are reasonable conditions to land at other airports?

Right now, there is not enough aircraft for commercial air traffic at Bromma, but if we shut down Bromma, we will never have commercial flights at Bromma airport. And it is in such a way that if one is in other places in Sweden, it is important to have access to two airports. That is why the great commitment to maintain Bromma airport comes from the rest of Sweden. We must be able to compromise on the capital. We from the rest of Sweden, for example I from Norrland, understand the need to be able to develop the capital. But it must also be so that all people around Sweden have access to the capital, where we have many of our common institutions and much more.

I think, Madam Speaker, that the government's and our coalition parties' position to fundamentally investigate what the needs look like moving forward is wise. Not least considering that what is now happening with electric aviation and other things could overturn everything from climate impact to what airport infrastructure needs to look like, it would be irresponsible to decommission Bromma airport.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to the interpellator and other debaters here in the chamber!

This is an important issue. I know that whether Bromma Airport should exist or not and how it should be used has been a hot topic of discussion for very many years. It is natural.

There has been talk here about political responsibility. I would like to say, Madam Speaker, that it is precisely what the government takes. Some of you know me and know that I often think things should go significantly faster than they do. But sometimes it is good for things to take time – as here, for the simple reason that this is an issue with very many different dimensions.

Just what has happened in the last five or six years after the pandemic, regarding how transport and flights and how people travel by plane have changed, is a very important prerequisite that affects Swedavia to the highest degree. There, I am also the responsible owner minister.

Another question is the security policy situation. One can read in the newspaper yesterday and today about the drones we are now seeing at various airports. It is a new dimension of security policy to have an airport in a capital city. We are also members of Nato. That also affects to some extent what should happen with the country's airports.

What am I trying to say then? Is it that I am trying to stall so that this goes slowly? No, of course the question of Bromma's future must have an answer. But that answer should be reached when we have all dimensions and can know how Bromma airport shall be used in the situation I mentioned.

During the time, Madam Speaker, I can mention that I understand the discussion about that it stands and costs money. This is also about Swedavia, which until the outbreak of the pandemic had a very positive development and profitability. Then, of course, Swedavia, airlines, and others had major problems during the pandemic with at least worse profitability. Now, however, we see in the turnover and profitability in Swedavia that they are slowly but surely developing in a positive direction as aviation recovers.

This is, therefore, an important issue, and I understand the interpellant's and the debaters' arguments. But it is also an issue with very many dimensions, and one must not rush. All the perspectives that have been mentioned here are absolutely perspectives to take into that discussion, but as a government, one must also take the security policy assessment into account.

As Edward Riedl pointed out: If one moves too fast – we are playing with the idea that it becomes exactly as the interpellor wants and this airport is soon closed – and once one has started building, one can never withdraw that decision. One must therefore really know what one is doing. This has many dimensions, and I believe that one should have respect for that.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank my colleagues in the Riksdag who are participating in the debate, and I thank the Minister for Finance for further developing the government's answers.

I share the concern regarding the geopolitical and security policy situation. The airspace violations occurring here in Sweden and in Europe are completely unacceptable. I truly hope that this is investigated thoroughly and that those behind these airspace violations are found.

I hear that the government uses the argument of the geopolitical situation and the defense aspect. I can, however, say this: In Mälardalen, just 30 miles from Stockholm, there are actually three or four airports. It is not the case that Stockholm or Sweden would fall if Bromma Airport did not exist. I hear from the Minister for Finance that the government is prepared to continue letting Swedavia be drained of 100 million kronor every year, which goes to an airport that actually echoes empty.

You Stockholmers who are listening, and you who are sitting in the gallery and listening: If you want peace and quiet and to find tranquility, you can go to Bromma Airport. It is empty. It echoes empty there – it is quieter than in the church!

I do not understand this reasoning or why people cling to the idea of retaining Bromma Airport. I would have liked to hear the Finance Minister give clear messages to the people of Stockholm and to the politicians in Stockholm about what this government wants regarding the future of Bromma Airport.

Madam Speaker! As I said in my first speech, this is a political issue. It requires responsibility, efficiency and justice – especially when it concerns a state-owned company such as Swedavia, which the Minister for Finance is responsible for. Swedavia is therefore losing 100 million kronor every year at Bromma Airport. This means that during this mandate period alone, nearly half a billion kronor is going to an airport that today has no functionality.

Regarding the socially important missions that MP Edward Riedl was referring to – including ambulance flights and organ flights – there are previous investigations showing that this can be resolved. Arlanda airport has the capacity to receive all flights with social missions. That argument does not hold either.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats demand order and clarity in the economy – even when it concerns the government's own companies. To let a state-owned company subsidize an unprofitable airport for a few people while simultaneously talking about savings in welfare, I believe is hypocrisy.

My question is: Will the Minister for Finance dare to show the courage to defy SD and the Tidö Agreement to stop this waste?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the Minister for Finance, the interpellator and other participants in the debate!

I would like to emphasize that the point of my participation in this debate and my previous contribution was to underline the importance for all of Sweden and all of Sweden's economy of how the social development in the capital region is progressing. It has significance in a long line of ways. It is about transport possibilities, possibilities to travel to and from the Stockholm region and the possibility of finding housing in this region when moving here. It is about how the society's economy functions – whether we have a dynamic labor market or not and whether it is hindered by a lack of housing supply or not.

In this region, this is, according to for example the analyses of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, a major socio-economic problem. I hold the Minister for Finance in Sweden responsible for that type of issue, Madam Speaker.

I would like to take the opportunity to read out what is stated in the committee directive for the investigation that the Minister for Finance refers to in his response to Kadir Kasirga in this interpellation. It states explicitly: "In the Tidö Agreement, which is an agreement between Sverigedemokraterna, Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna and Liberalerna, it is stated that Bromma Airport shall be preserved and that no decision to close the airport will be made during the mandate period."

The analyses seem to have already been made. The decision is, so to speak, already made from this government's perspective. Is that not the case?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by thanking the Minister for Finance for listening to and taking in the arguments and actually providing a picture of a certain complexity in these issues. I can only emphasize what the Minister for Finance herself testifies to, namely that this debate about whether Bromma Airport should exist or not and so on has been ongoing for quite some time. For that reason, I want to particularly emphasize that this is not a new issue. It is something for which there is quite a lot of evidence and which has been ongoing for a longer period of time.

I therefore want to emphasize that I could have understood if one wants to be cautious when asserting that one cannot take back the decisions and so on – if there had not been other alternatives and we did not have other airports in the location where one needs to be when it comes to handling readiness and commercial aviation or when it is about being able to take over, complement or contribute to the national plan for airports.

That is why I am raising this. Skavsta airport is 10 miles from here. It is not a distance. It is, therefore, 10 miles between Bromma and Skavsta, and I think that more should be able to be done here. It is an airport that is in such a condition that it can solve all the questions that we need to solve, everything from defense and the military to readiness regarding the Air Force or commercial aviation.

So, there is an airport here with infrastructure that has been invested in. Therefore, I want to participate in this debate to give courage to the government to make the decisions that are required.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin by saying that Skavsta Airport is of course important, like all other airports around Sweden. If the genuine concern from the Social Democrats concerned the entire country's access to the capital and that Skavsta Airport is located so close that it could replace Bromma, one could simultaneously ask: Why are the Socialdemokraterns not pushing that we should build housing at Skavsta Airport instead if it is now located so close? The problem with what the Socialdemokraterns say is that they mean it is perfectly reasonable for people in the rest of the country to travel those 10 miles if they are going to the capital, but not for those who live and work in the Stockholm region. The reasoning does not hold together.

My point was already from the beginning that one needs to be able to both weigh in the capital's interests, that people should be able to live and have a good life here in the capital, and see that there is a country outside, where one also needs functioning access to the capital and to transport out to the continent and so on.

Madam Speaker! I also think it is very regrettable that the Social Democrats seem to have the perception that one does not need to take into account the changed global situation.

Is the message from the Social Democrats – you are welcome to tell it here in the chamber – that you intend to shut down Bromma Airport as soon as you get the chance, without investigating, for example, the security policy situation and the possibility of redundancy? Is the message from the Social Democrats that you do not even intend to look at that investigation where all of this is examined, as well as the future with electric aviation? The development is happening incredibly fast. Is it not important for the Social Democrats to look at the future?

If one shuts down Bromma Airport, it cannot be restarted. It is responsible to let this take some time before a decision is made.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me thank Sofia Amloh for the reminder about Skavsta. I believe that reminder also pleases many. I also thank the interpellor for the concern regarding Swedavia's finances. It is not always members of the Swedish Riksdag who reflect on the finances of state-owned companies.

As a small parenthesis, an addition, I can say that all of us taxpayers who live here together own approximately 40 companies with a value of around 870 billion kronor. It is the largest corporate portfolio in Sweden. It creates many values and fulfills many other important societal functions.

One thing is certain regarding Swedavia, the economy, and also the cost for the future: If decisions are made too quickly, there is a risk of much larger costs ahead – both economic costs and other societal costs. Therefore, a well-founded decision must be made.

Much has happened in the world over the last five years. Much has happened with travel. As many of us have already been involved in – the interpellor, the members, and I myself – we also know that the global situation has changed. It is a different time.

It sounds as if Bromma Airport is not being used for anything at all. Today, it fulfills a very important function for, for example, socially useful transport such as police, ambulance, and business aviation. With Bromma, an airspace over and around Stockholm is also ensured. That should not be underestimated in these times. These operations are not entirely simple. They are judged as quite difficult to move and perhaps cannot be managed at Arlanda at all. But this is a matter that the investigator must now look into.

That we are appointing an investigation has to do with all the dimensions that I have mentioned, where things have changed in just a few years. Before decisions are made regarding Bromma's future, regardless of what decision it becomes, all the dimensions that I have mentioned need to be illuminated. I just want to emphasize that.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to the Minister for Finance and the other members for the debate!

I want to start by saying that domestic flights already depart from Arlanda. That is where the investments are needed. When it comes to the defense need, I want to say that if there is a real defense need, it should be reported openly. One should not hide civil waste behind military arguments. I do not think we should use Nato as a cover for economic sloppiness.

Bromma has already been investigated countless times. Every time, the conclusion has been the same. Even Swedavia, which has investigated the issue itself, writes that the airport is no longer profitable.

We already know the answer, then. It is not more investigations that are needed. What is needed is a decision. We heard from my colleague in the Riksdag, Sofia Amloh, that there is already an airport 10 miles from Bromma, in Skavsta. 30 miles from Stockholm, there are even more airports.

Madam Speaker! This is about the Tidö Agreement. The Finance Minister and the Moderaterna choose to continue pumping in 100 million kronor every year into an airport that echoes empty, just to honor the Tidö Agreement and let the waste of taxpayers' money continue.

I thank you once again for the debate.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! This is an important issue. It evokes many emotions. It is perhaps not primarily a party issue – it crosses many party lines, I believe. Furthermore, it looks different in different parts of Sweden, which is elongated and large.

I have great respect for the arguments. I shall say that clearly. I do not engage in waste. That would be the worst thing one can do. I have order and clarity in the state's finances, and I have raised the requirements for the state-owned companies in a way that few other governments have done, with requirements for return and a very clear ownership policy. Then we have many dimensions to take into account, and one must know what one is doing before making a decision, because it could cost us dearly if we make the wrong decision today.

Thank you for the debate and have a nice weekend!

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)